New roll-out (propaganda campaign) for war with Iran?

oralloy wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
all those in favor of a pre-emptive strike on iran raise your right hand...

I need more information.

If we can exclude the use of nuclear weapons, and if we can pull the aircraft carriers out of range of Iran's anti-ship missiles and do the bombing using heavy bombers flying out of Diego Garcia and Tomahawks fired from subs, then sure. It'll be something to watch on TV.

But if we have to nuke Iran or keep our carriers in harms way, then I vote no.

In case you didn't realize it Iran has a rather long border with Iraq and Afghanistan. The US presently has a large number of troops in both of those countries. Nothing like giving Iran a reason to really support the insurgencies and supply men and materials in response to an act of war by the US.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Bernie is obviously comfortably situated and sees it all as a vehicle for the exercise of his acuity, virtuousness and command of the English language.

Comfortably situated? I suppose. Though magnitudes less so than the individuals who are driving this present militarism who will move on to the lecture circuit or lucrative directorships and all the other perks that oligarchies present to those engaged. Few, very few, will risk a square inch of their own (or their kids' skin). In the meantime, all the women and children and grandfathers at the other end of their ideologies and shiny, manly tech will be dying horribly.

Acuity? It seems a fine goal to reach for in terms of, say, geology or the construction of a riveting line of poetry. Why not in human affairs?

Virtuousness? Each of us wrestles with this constantly, and any pretense that we do not seems disingenuous, in the manner of, "golly, can't be seen to be uncool". Which isn't to say I'm not a moralizing bastard.

0 Replies

Bernie wrote-

Quote:

Comfortably situated? I suppose. Though magnitudes less so than the individuals who are driving this present militarism who will move on to the lecture circuit or lucrative directorships and all the other perks that oligarchies present to those engaged.

What alternative exists? I don't see what you're driving at. You would need a revolution to avoid those things and even then they would soon set in again.

The "war" was overwhemingingly voted for by those who are elected and paid to be up to speed (selected in Darwin might have put it). All wars are a mess. They knew that.

I consider it "uncool" to be virtuous from the sidelines- yes. Virtuous people are working in the refugee camps in Africa and elsewhere.

The news from Pakistan suggests some wobbling. If that goes wrong you are on another level. Maybe cricket will keep them on board.

And General Jackson doesn't go public on "intellectual bankruptcy" just for fun. It's a criticism of your education system more than anything else.

Churchill and Eden both referred to the American propensity, which I have found on here to be more or less ubiquitous, to believe anything they say on the sole evidence of them having said it. The "slam dunk" mode of discussion. That would obviously lead to intellectual bankruptcy. It does here and has done under that sad last PM.

For example- that the military is "stretched to the eyeballs", presented as a fact and a policy then derived from it and it's pure rubbish. From a military point of view you have redundancy galore. Take the "huge success" of the A2K meeting recently as both an assertion and of squandering resources on a whim. A joy ride to a salad and some contactless sociability. I would bet that the average American would not know you were at war if he hadn't seen it in media.

Quote:

Well, either Americans are cowards or they are spoiled and lazy or they, in great majority, are not in agreement with present American militarism. Which would you conclude to be true regarding Americans?

If the first part is true wouldn't it explain the second part?

c.i.-

I'm sorry if I missed your policy statement. Would you be so kind as to provide a brief outline of the essential points of it?

0 Replies

bm

0 Replies

(Sometimes I just love when bm's show up.) Very Happy

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

(Sometimes I just love when bm's show up.)

Ya, makes you feel a lot better afterward. Laughing

0 Replies

Sometimes relief is necessary to carry on. Wink

0 Replies

spendi

I'm not going to get into a pissing match. I'm rather too fond of you for that. Besides, either of us, because of our tenuous grasp on 'reality', are likely to mis-aim and end up peeing all over grandma. And that's just WRONG.

0 Replies

Don't you see Bernie that-

Quote:

Besides, either of us, because of our tenuous grasp on 'reality'

Is an assertion. I have too good a grasp on reality for my own good.

Have you read Finnegans Wake?

0 Replies

I don't think I read Finnegan's Wake. I'd likely recall it but my mental filing cabinet needs a secretary.

What on earth does the term 'assert' mean to you, spendi? Or to put this another way, are we going to have you assert that your posts here constitute some unique assertion-free-zone?

0 Replies

It was an assertion to state that I had a tenuous grasp on reality and it was a bit of a trick, (like trying to mix me up with Floofie?), admitting your own tenuous grasp and trying to call it a draw on that basis instead of answering the points I had made.

I can justify any assertions I offer (leaving Wittgenstein out of it) and I usually do.

It's pub time here. See you later maybe.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

It was an assertion to state that I had a tenuous grasp on reality and it was a bit of a trick, (like trying to mix me up with Floofie?), admitting your own tenuous grasp and trying to call it a draw on that basis instead of answering the points I had made.

I can justify any assertions I offer (leaving Wittgenstein out of it) and I usually do.

It's pub time here. See you later maybe.

Sincerely...have a grand evening. But I won't continue this with you here.

0 Replies

Here's a sober piece from Gwynne Dyer, a respected Canadian reporter/writer who has covered military matters for three decades. The publication is from my old home town...

Quote:

Bush's hawks size up Iran
Commentary By Gwynne Dyer
Publish Date: August 23, 2007
It's impossible to say whether or not the United States will attack Iran before President George W. Bush leaves office in 17 months' time, because nobody in the White House knows yet. It is easy to predict what would happen if the U.S. did attack Iran, however, and the signs are that the hawks in the White House are winning that argument.

http://www.straight.com/article-106714/bushs-hawks-size-up-iran

0 Replies

It's just another "who blinks first "High Noon" thing Bernie. Don't you know your Kissinger yet?

Iran will blink first. You can count on it.

Gwynne is probably the Editor's niece or something. His golf partner's daughter maybe.

0 Replies

spendius wrote :

Quote:

Gwynne is probably the Editor's niece or something. His golf partner's daughter maybe.

gwynne dyer is one of my favourite writers/broadcasters on current affairs - which perhaps doesn't say much - it's just for the record .
hbg .

Quote:

GWYNNE DYER has worked as a freelance journalist, columnist, broadcaster and lecturer on international affairs for more than 20 years, but he was originally trained as an historian. Born in Newfoundland, he received degrees from Canadian, American and British universities, finishing with a Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History from the University of London. He served in three navies and held academic appointments at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and Oxford University before launching his twice-weekly column on international affairs, which is published by over 175 papers in some 45 countries.

His first television series, the 7-part documentary 'War', was aired in 45 countries in the mid-80s. One episode, 'The Profession of Arms', was nominated for an Academy Award. His more recent works include the 1994 series 'The Human Race', and 'Protection Force', a three-part series on peacekeepers in Bosnia, both of which won Gemini awards. His award-winning radio documentaries include 'The Gorbachev Revolution', a seven-part series based on Dyer's experiences in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in 1987-90, and 'Millenium', a six-hour series on the emerging global culture.

His current projects include a book and a television documentary on the looming strategic confrontation in Asia and a radio series on the long-range political and demographic implications of extreme climate change.

for anyone interested :
LINK TO ONE OF GWYNNE DYER'S ARTICLES

0 Replies

Fancy calling a son Gwynne. What's up with Fred or Joe? The psychologists have a name for that stuff but I can't remember what it is. Parental f**k-up maybe.

Has he been anywhere near the fan when the **** hits?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

oralloy wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
all those in favor of a pre-emptive strike on iran raise your right hand...

I need more information.

If we can exclude the use of nuclear weapons, and if we can pull the aircraft carriers out of range of Iran's anti-ship missiles and do the bombing using heavy bombers flying out of Diego Garcia and Tomahawks fired from subs, then sure. It'll be something to watch on TV.

But if we have to nuke Iran or keep our carriers in harms way, then I vote no.

Boy, what fun! Get out the popcorn and beer. Call the buddies and get them over to watch in the rec room as insignificant people of the wrong color get exploded real good.

Skin color is irrelevant. War makes good TV no matter who is being bombed.

And if Bush leaves the carriers in the Gulf, the most interesting part of the war will probably be Russian-built anti-ship missiles verses our aircraft carrier defenses.

Might see Americans get exploded real good.

Though why Bush wants to leave the carriers in harms way is beyond me.

blatham wrote:

Your deference to the consequences of nuclear fallout make you about the lousiest saint I've seen today.

The B61-11 at full yield is rather unpleasant, fallout wise -- perhaps worse than you think. It wouldn't end all life on the planet or anything, but the fallout plume wouldn't be very pretty.

Airbursts on the other hand, those aren't so bad when it comes to fallout, especially the high yield air bursts (though Indian monsoons would still make an unpleasant combination with the fallout if they crossed paths).

No airburst is going to be destroying that bunker by Isfahan though. It is built in the heart of a mountain.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
all those in favor of a pre-emptive strike on iran raise your right hand...

I need more information.

If we can exclude the use of nuclear weapons, and if we can pull the aircraft carriers out of range of Iran's anti-ship missiles and do the bombing using heavy bombers flying out of Diego Garcia and Tomahawks fired from subs, then sure. It'll be something to watch on TV.

But if we have to nuke Iran or keep our carriers in harms way, then I vote no.

In case you didn't realize it Iran has a rather long border with Iraq and Afghanistan. The US presently has a large number of troops in both of those countries. Nothing like giving Iran a reason to really support the insurgencies and supply men and materials in response to an act of war by the US.

If Iran chooses to side with the Taliban and/or al-Qa'ida, it is fine with me if we directly target their civilians in retaliation for 9/11.

On the other hand, if they choose to mess with Iraq, that's no big deal. I suspect we are about to withdraw and leave the Iraqis to commit genocide against each other anyway.

0 Replies

i don't think the welsh were/are particularly fond of the english - and english given names .
since many settlers arrived in newfoundland from WALES they continue to use welsh given names . (don't tell them they came from england/britain! you might as well say to an irishman that he is british/english - have you ever tried that ? Shocked

) .

i can think of many names i'm not familiar with but wouldn't see any reason to use your "choice" expressions , such as : "Has he been anywhere near the fan when the **** hits?' .

did you have to attend "special" education classes to learn those expressions or were you home-schooled ?
hbg

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

Quote:

If Iran chooses to side with the Taliban and/or al-Qa'ida, it is fine with me if we directly target their civilians in retaliation for 9/11.

How many slaughtered civilians will satisfy your retaliatory hunger for the 3,000 dead in New York? Serious question. There are already some 100,000 and quite possibly more in Iraq plus unknown thousands in Afghanistan. Could you give us a number please. I'd like to know what marker you see appropriate as a time to stop slaughtering civilians.

0 Replies

New roll-out (propaganda campaign) for war with Iran?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know